06-18-2020, 10:36 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-22-2020, 08:35 PM by Sunclarity.)
What is a word? A word is a sign. An image that is supposed to be associated with/symbolize another image. It is not what symbolizes, it is only itself. In the case of words, only sound or light. In that sense, the word tree is not a tree, the word bird is not a bird and so on.
Everyone with experience in educational facilities have heard that at least once, but could it be that you understood it as you seem to think you did? Your words surely suggest that you do since you say: words aren't objects, they are signs. But did you really understand this?
It means I am not telling anything here. Not as you know telling. Think through. Words aren't meaning as you know it, just sound or light. No different in terms of meaning of you hearing a rock falling onto the ground or you seeing the sun's rays while in a place like the beach.
This raises some questions. How come we let the other know of our ideas if words don't communicate meaning as we know it? How do we learn from books? They have words and we seem to learn from these. The answer can be said to be, in a sense, indocrination.
We taught ourselves to react in a way when experiencing words. For instance, with indocrination (or proficiency) on the English language, by reading the word "hatred", we react by creating a feeling of hostility within ourselves. With the word "love", a feeling of acceptance.
This is verifiable by noting the moments we defied the indocrination just because we wanted to. We all have heard people telling they loved us without creating the feeling of acceptance. In the same way, we all have heard people telling they hated us without creating hostility.
The reasons differed from time to time and person to person. We might have felt too sad when receiving the word love, so it had no effect. Likewise, we might have felt too happy to feel sad when receiving the word hatred. But these are excuses the self creates in confusion.
If you pay attention to your reactions, you will see, you control them. Yes, most don't seem to control it very well, but this can be compared with lack of motivation. If we want to wash dishes, we wash. There is no too sad or too happy state, there is just wanting or not wanting.
So in the end, or always, we react the way we do because we want. This doesn't just concern emotion but also what we view as abstract information. All is based in the same fact. Words are signs and nothing beyond themselves. So if we feel through will, we learn through will.
This implies indocrination is actually a misnomer. It is associated with the idea of other imposing into self but that can't happen through words and it turns out, neither through more organic symbology such as facial expressions, gestures of the hand, way of walking, etc.
The latter suggest as our brains are the same fundamentally, so it knows/thinks instinctively, at least in a way, when other is feeling emotion, but even when we are considering emotion only, the suggestion is never a command and as suggestion, is thought created willingly.
That is to say, all of the indocrination we thought existed for either emotional or abstract reaction is based solely on inner will. The indocrination, teaching/learning of reactions is then but a mental image, a thought, an excuse to hide the truth that will is the cause and the effect.
But doesn't tradition tell us that we learn how to speak by observing others do it? Well, lets consider that. What exactly is it that we observe? Reaction, isn't it? How people react to the various words they read, write, hear and speak. But of what kind are all their reactions?
It's of emotion. It's an emotional reaction. We see them happy, sad, in love, bored, disgusted, afraid, courageous, confident, and so on. Tradition says we learn from this emotional response but how would that even happen? Lets bring abstraction and that simply seems unfeasible.
How can one learn to react to words in order to learn, for example, even basic physics or chemistry by just seeing other people's emotions? According to the logic we call intellect, it doesn't add up. Neither does if we consider the other famous method, the finger pointing.
We say a word and point our finger to the object. One might reinforce the quick succession of finger, word and object far enough times in one's mind to think of the object every time he receives the word, but this is habit, not causation, and it fails to address more complicated topics.
In short, words don't convey meaning and indocrination done by others don't teach us to react intellectually or emotionally. All is us. What of us? Our Will. Each of our individual will is creating meaning by itself and from itself. We communicate though for all will is connected.
All will is one will, and the one will that is the creator willing to create itself. This will is thought, so, by definition, we can say we communicate via telepathy, but via will is just as accurate and may I say, it sounds more marvelous for it shows even more what the Creator is.
That being, pure Will. That's hard to accept for we lived our whole life thinking the opposite. We went to school for decades because we thought words taught. We spent great wealth on college courses and suffered so much through exams and academic pressures.
All because we thought words taught. Even now, you came here because you saw that as truth. Your skeptic mind is surely questioning this hugely, if not for the time you believed the illusion, the amount of sufference that it brought to you. The money, the joy lost.
I've already given the intellectual proof you needed. But I'll take it a bit further because I too suffered much under the same illusion. When I first became aware of this I brought the obvious. If words don't convey meaning, why meaning is only when words are?
That's probably your question too. And there is much proof to give it grounds. Those who haven't read books, attended school and college, they didn't really learn much at all. In fact, they still don't. There is clearly something we are missing in this whole situation.
There is indeed, and that's about the nature of Will, or the nature of creation as a whole. Will is infinite intelligence for it is the only Will there is and is the Will that brought all things forth. It, however, by distorting itself in the illusion, seems to lose some of its intelligence.
This is the answer we were looking for. You see, within the constrictions present in this illusion, Will or Infinite Intelligence creates and is all there is as always, but, in confusion, it does that in a confused kind of way. So, in the illusion, Will, as we know it internally, is not enough.
If the purest form of Will doesn't seem enough, the confused self believes he needs something other than Will, and that's when words and other symbols such as a smile come along. But they are still Will you see, just a distorted form Will gave to a distorted Will.
One that wasn't quite ready to accept Will as pure as it gets was the source of all knowledge all along. It does that because it is Love. Here we have, love in one moment not wanting to admit it is love. How would love be love if forcing itself to admit it is what it is?
It always is what is, but, if it feels like saying it's not, it gives itself love or kindness even then. That's the remaining part of the answer. They combined means, we don't learn without books because we are not ready to accept the truth, but we are already it
Everyone with experience in educational facilities have heard that at least once, but could it be that you understood it as you seem to think you did? Your words surely suggest that you do since you say: words aren't objects, they are signs. But did you really understand this?
It means I am not telling anything here. Not as you know telling. Think through. Words aren't meaning as you know it, just sound or light. No different in terms of meaning of you hearing a rock falling onto the ground or you seeing the sun's rays while in a place like the beach.
This raises some questions. How come we let the other know of our ideas if words don't communicate meaning as we know it? How do we learn from books? They have words and we seem to learn from these. The answer can be said to be, in a sense, indocrination.
We taught ourselves to react in a way when experiencing words. For instance, with indocrination (or proficiency) on the English language, by reading the word "hatred", we react by creating a feeling of hostility within ourselves. With the word "love", a feeling of acceptance.
This is verifiable by noting the moments we defied the indocrination just because we wanted to. We all have heard people telling they loved us without creating the feeling of acceptance. In the same way, we all have heard people telling they hated us without creating hostility.
The reasons differed from time to time and person to person. We might have felt too sad when receiving the word love, so it had no effect. Likewise, we might have felt too happy to feel sad when receiving the word hatred. But these are excuses the self creates in confusion.
If you pay attention to your reactions, you will see, you control them. Yes, most don't seem to control it very well, but this can be compared with lack of motivation. If we want to wash dishes, we wash. There is no too sad or too happy state, there is just wanting or not wanting.
So in the end, or always, we react the way we do because we want. This doesn't just concern emotion but also what we view as abstract information. All is based in the same fact. Words are signs and nothing beyond themselves. So if we feel through will, we learn through will.
This implies indocrination is actually a misnomer. It is associated with the idea of other imposing into self but that can't happen through words and it turns out, neither through more organic symbology such as facial expressions, gestures of the hand, way of walking, etc.
The latter suggest as our brains are the same fundamentally, so it knows/thinks instinctively, at least in a way, when other is feeling emotion, but even when we are considering emotion only, the suggestion is never a command and as suggestion, is thought created willingly.
That is to say, all of the indocrination we thought existed for either emotional or abstract reaction is based solely on inner will. The indocrination, teaching/learning of reactions is then but a mental image, a thought, an excuse to hide the truth that will is the cause and the effect.
But doesn't tradition tell us that we learn how to speak by observing others do it? Well, lets consider that. What exactly is it that we observe? Reaction, isn't it? How people react to the various words they read, write, hear and speak. But of what kind are all their reactions?
It's of emotion. It's an emotional reaction. We see them happy, sad, in love, bored, disgusted, afraid, courageous, confident, and so on. Tradition says we learn from this emotional response but how would that even happen? Lets bring abstraction and that simply seems unfeasible.
How can one learn to react to words in order to learn, for example, even basic physics or chemistry by just seeing other people's emotions? According to the logic we call intellect, it doesn't add up. Neither does if we consider the other famous method, the finger pointing.
We say a word and point our finger to the object. One might reinforce the quick succession of finger, word and object far enough times in one's mind to think of the object every time he receives the word, but this is habit, not causation, and it fails to address more complicated topics.
In short, words don't convey meaning and indocrination done by others don't teach us to react intellectually or emotionally. All is us. What of us? Our Will. Each of our individual will is creating meaning by itself and from itself. We communicate though for all will is connected.
All will is one will, and the one will that is the creator willing to create itself. This will is thought, so, by definition, we can say we communicate via telepathy, but via will is just as accurate and may I say, it sounds more marvelous for it shows even more what the Creator is.
That being, pure Will. That's hard to accept for we lived our whole life thinking the opposite. We went to school for decades because we thought words taught. We spent great wealth on college courses and suffered so much through exams and academic pressures.
All because we thought words taught. Even now, you came here because you saw that as truth. Your skeptic mind is surely questioning this hugely, if not for the time you believed the illusion, the amount of sufference that it brought to you. The money, the joy lost.
I've already given the intellectual proof you needed. But I'll take it a bit further because I too suffered much under the same illusion. When I first became aware of this I brought the obvious. If words don't convey meaning, why meaning is only when words are?
That's probably your question too. And there is much proof to give it grounds. Those who haven't read books, attended school and college, they didn't really learn much at all. In fact, they still don't. There is clearly something we are missing in this whole situation.
There is indeed, and that's about the nature of Will, or the nature of creation as a whole. Will is infinite intelligence for it is the only Will there is and is the Will that brought all things forth. It, however, by distorting itself in the illusion, seems to lose some of its intelligence.
This is the answer we were looking for. You see, within the constrictions present in this illusion, Will or Infinite Intelligence creates and is all there is as always, but, in confusion, it does that in a confused kind of way. So, in the illusion, Will, as we know it internally, is not enough.
If the purest form of Will doesn't seem enough, the confused self believes he needs something other than Will, and that's when words and other symbols such as a smile come along. But they are still Will you see, just a distorted form Will gave to a distorted Will.
One that wasn't quite ready to accept Will as pure as it gets was the source of all knowledge all along. It does that because it is Love. Here we have, love in one moment not wanting to admit it is love. How would love be love if forcing itself to admit it is what it is?
It always is what is, but, if it feels like saying it's not, it gives itself love or kindness even then. That's the remaining part of the answer. They combined means, we don't learn without books because we are not ready to accept the truth, but we are already it
![[Image: HAtomOrbitals.png]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/HAtomOrbitals.png)
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)
